I have noted, with some lack of embarrassment (I know, it embarrasses me that I am not embarrassed), my utter jealousy of Michael Fumento’s hate mail category (although Mike Adams has a good one too, but not nearly as admirable as Michael’s). So it is with proud anticipation that the Captain’s Journal announces the “Jackass of the Year” award. It goes to one SSG Kevin Gorman, who writes to us (continually, we might add) from a military network domain:

I actually know the location from which he is writing, but I will let the army figure than one out. It should be easy for them.

In response to my post The NCOs Speak on Rules of Engagement, dear Kevin began dropping cantankerous comments that quickly devolved into spam (name calling) that Spam Karma II caught (many, many of them). I love Spam Karma II. It keeps all information from the sender, and stops the spammed comments automatically based on the settings that I give it. So I get to see what Kevin has said, and from where he has said it.

Kevin has been quite the author over the last couple days. One wonders exactly what he has been doing with his time? A little background. I had received a comment from Major Joel Leggett, currently in Iraq, stating to me that his unit “always resolves any reasonable doubt in favor of the individual marine on the ground.” I responded to Maj. Leggett that I was glad to see that this was so, while also continuing my polite questioning of the ROE under which we operate.

Now. I responded this way for reasons known only to me. It could have been the viability of U.S. warfighting capabilities, or it could have been the safety of the unit my son deploys with (2/6), or it could have been related exclusively to my son and any future engagement he might have with the enemy when he deploys. The reader doesn’t know. This is key. I digress for a moment. Anyone who has actually been through the pain of watching, nay, participating in, proceedings that were conducted by Robert’s Rules of Order, knows that one huge no-no is ascribing motive to someone. You know what they say, but you do not know what they think (by the way, this is one thing that causes so many problems with interpreting congressional legislation after the fact).

But Kevin claimed to know what I thought, when he wrote back to me the following words: “Ya, I’ll bet. Better to keep your son alive than to win the war.”

Congratulations, Kevin! You have won it! The “Jackass of the Year” award. You win it, and in the superlative degree. No one else was close in the running.

Though … I still wonder how you have the time to send me all of those spams when you have … um … a military job.

Gorman (GorTex6) has been banned from the Small Wars Council since June. He was extremely disruptive and just wouldn’t play by the rules – even after multiple warnings. Talk about petty – he sent us a donation – 1 cent – said we weren’t worth 2;-)

Dave

dw

I understand fully why “kevin” was “spammed”, but as disconnected from reality as he sounded, I think the debate was progressing nicely. Bad ideas were encountering good ideas. It was with some pain that I came to realize that all of his postings had been deleted.

A lot of the ideas he expressed were ideas we hear from other people as well, people with real power. It is valuable for those ideas to be shown defective.

So one might hope for a form of moderation which deletes offensive postings but leaves simply controversial ones, while leaving the future open.

http://www.smallwarsjournal.com SWJED

dw – You have a point, I believe Herschel does too. In my case (SWC) – I gave “kevin” the benefit of the doubt – attempted to mentor him on how to debate without personal attacks – he would agree and then go back to his abusive MO – which were no more than one-line drive-bys without substance or reason. There are times when you just have to cut the cord and move on so the serious minded can have an “adult” conversation of the issues. Gorman was like that bratty child who won’t shut up in public.

Herschel Smith

dw,

“It was with some pain that I came to realize that all of his postings had been deleted.”

First of all, this is hard to imagine. He comments were biting, unconstructive ad hominem personal attacks, and as such, added nothing to the discussion. Second, like Dave, I tried to let him have maximum lattitude, but he abused it. Third, you did not get a chance to see what he sent that never made it to the level of comments (was caught by the software).

Finally, Dave runs a professional outfit over at the SWJ. This is a small-time operation, and there just aren’t enough hours in the day to work through these issues with Kevin.

So, no one has asked why I posted his e-mail. Here is the answer. I got spammed a lot from Kevin. Now Kevin can suffer the spam that he gets from having an active e-mail on a blog subject to automatic searches by software intended to do nothing but find e-mail addresses. I get it all the time. Now Kevin can devote a portion of his time over the next few days deleting junk e-mail like I did from him.